Re: [drools-dev] Schema

I have created some initial documentation in order to show why we took 
the approach of using abstract elements, root types and de-coupling 
java, groovy and python xsds from rule.xsd - with an aim to give a wider 
picture of how this currently fits in with the drools application.

http://drools.org/Schema+Validation

Mark
Roger F. Gay wrote:

>I think it will help make what we're doing more
>efficient if I repeat that I've been through the whole
>schema review process once already. I don't mean that
>my work should no longer be reviewed in the future. I
>mean that we've faced all these issues before. So, if
>I'm direct at times, it's because general
>understanding has already been developed.
>
>There will be more than one version of the schema set!
>
>Go ahead and put what I've already done into CVS.
>We'll just need to think about the names of the xsd
>files ... for example drl_base.xsd, drl_se.xsd ... and
>include clear documentation that will help application
>developers make the best choice. Some will be able to
>use one of the schema sets right out of the box, while
>others will be looking for the one that is closest to
>what they need and easiest to modify / maintain.
>
>And no -- we don't want a thousand schema sets in cvs
>just to confuse everyone. Each base schema must be
>designed in the best way for a particular purpose.
>I've already been through this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Cool, sounds like you have some interesting
>>solutions to show us, look 
>>forward to seeing those and your patches so we can
>>review and apply to cvs.
>>
>>Mark
>>Roger F. Gay wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>But it doesn't actually check anything. It's "fully
>>>extensible" to the point that it doesn't matter at
>>>      
>>>
>>all
>>    
>>
>>>what element shows up .... it's even less effective
>>>than the original schema that at least checked for
>>>      
>>>
>>an
>>    
>>
>>>acceptable namespace.
>>>
>>>I've solved the problem -- checking all elements in
>>>      
>>>
>>a
>>    
>>
>>>drl without referencing any particular semantics --
>>>all the way up to the xpath problem in the keyref.
>>>
>>>But I don't know what the heck I'm doing here if
>>>you're going to put your Schemas in the codebase no
>>>matter what.
>>>
>>>
>>>--- Mark Proctor <mproctor <at> codehaus.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Current schemas in CVS are fully extensible based
>>>>around abstract types 
>>>>and substitution; there is now no coupling of the
>>>>various semantic drls 
>>>>with the base rule.drl
>>>>
>>>>Mark
>>>>Roger F. Gay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>--- bob <at> codehaus.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark and Andy are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>working on breaking the link between the core
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>xsd
>>    
>>
>>>>>>and the various XSDs for
>>>>>>each semantic module
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>::: We do seem to be working in the same
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>direction
>>    
>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>this is exactly what I was talking about in one
>>>>>section of my recent comment to user-group asking
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>for
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>help on the Schema sub-project. Note, that I also
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>said
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I've almost got it and defined the one problem
>>>>>remaining.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pop into IRC and we can coordinate everyone's
>>>>>>efforts.  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>::: Still can't pop into IRC so far as I know.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>Can
>>    
>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>we
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>do this via the dev-group list, or create a
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>little
>>    
>>
>>>>>informal email list for this special effort :: my
>>>>>email address is rogerfgay <at> yahoo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark and Andy are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>working on breaking the link between the core
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>xsd
>>    
>>
>>>>>>and the various XSDs for
>>>>>>each semantic module, which would be a boon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>	-bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Roger F. Gay wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is anyone planning on adding the schema to CVS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>=====
>>>>>>>Correlation does not prove causality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>		
>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>>>>Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>Download
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>now. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://messenger.yahoo.com
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>=====
>>>>>Correlation does not prove causality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>	
>>>>>		
>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>>>Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
>>>>>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>=====
>>>Correlation does not prove causality.
>>>
>>>
>>>		
>>>__________________________________
>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
>>>      
>>>
>>finish.
>>    
>>
>>>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>=====
>Correlation does not prove causality.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>  
>